KHADIR ALIAS RAVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE detenu himself is the petitioner. He has been detained by the order of detention dated 28.08.2007 passed by the second respondent branding him as a Goonda, in exercise of the powers conferred under 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). Challenging the above said order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

(2.) BY an affidavit dated 24.08.2007, the sponsoring authority viz., Inspector of Police (Crime), S-5 Pallavaram Police Station, had requested the detaining authority to take action against the detenu for his detention under the Act 14 of 1982. The said request was made on the ground that the detenu had an adverse case in Cr.No.295 of 2007 on the file of S-5, Pallavaram Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The ground case came to be registered on a complaint from one Mr.Sugumar, who is a painter by profession stating that while he was proceeding to attend his work on 10.07.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., near slaughtering house ground at Pallavaram, the detenu wrongfully restrained him by brandishing with a patta knife and threatened him to part with money from his pocket and Rs.110/- was forcibly taken away from him and he was also relieved of his wrist watch even while he raised hue and cry. BY the time the general public, who gathered at the spot, came for his rescue and made an attempt to apprehend the detenu. On noticing the public, the detenu threatened them at knife point by uttering "vtdhtJ fpl;l te;jP';fd;dh c';fs; vy;yhj;ija[k; xHpr;rpfl;o tpLntd;" and thereafter he escaped from the scene. The complaint given by the said Sugumar was registered in Cr.No.390 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 341 397 r/w 506(ii)of IPC. The detenu was arrested on 11.07.2007 and he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who in turn remanded him to judicial custody till 25.07.2007. Thereafter, the remand was further extended periodically till 05.09.2007. Therefore, the sponsoring authority had requested the detaining authority to consider the detention of the detenu under Act 14 of 1082 with a view to preventing him from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(3.) MR.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would on the other hand submit the above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case and on the contrary he would rely upon, yet another judgment in H.C.P.No. 220 of 2004 dated 28.04.2004.